Yes she is.
Hermione would be insulted by that.
She practiced tax law for the IRS. I’m assuming that means she got an LL.M from somewhere, and that her law degree was recognized. If not, then you’d think by now her opponents would have dug up the dirt on this and raked her over the coals on it, and she’d be facing disbarment and possible legal charges.
I think you’re approaching ‘truther’ territory when you start asserting fake degrees, absent any evidence that this is the case. Why go there?
See, now this is totally fair, assuming your summary of her statements is correct. Although I wouldn’t say that making crazy/extreme statements that pander to her base is a sign of stupidity - it could be coldly calculated bullshit that she’s spewing in order to gain the kind of support and financing she obviously enjoys. That would make her unethical, not stupid.
She’s obviously a very hardcore Christian Fundamentalist, which in my book is enough right there to dismiss her as a viable candidate. A politician who wants creationism taught in schools already has a big strike against her.
If Bachmann is a smarter, more educated Palin, but one who is also more militant about advancing a socially conservative Christian agenda, then I’d rather see Palin as President. But then, I’d also rather have needles stuck in my eyes.
Looks like I botched my link above.
So Coburn lost its accreditidation in '81, and was shut down in '86. Sometime before '86, it was apparently reinstated, but it doesn’t say exactly when. Maybe it had some kind of ABA accreditidation back by the time Bachmann graduated, but I would still say it’s not a very impressive credential, especially for someone who has alleged that Obama is not educated enough (with his Harvard Law degree) to be POTUS.
Okay, first of all, they lost their accreditation not because of weak curriculum, but because of the Christian requirement. So this actually says nothing about the quality of her legal education. Second, your link says Oral Roberts law school got its accreditation back, and then it closed in 1986 - which is consistent with Bachmann’s bio, where it says she was in the last graduating class of the law school before it moved to Regent University. Therefore, she graduated from an accredited law school with a valid degree.
Bachmann has an LL.M from William and Mary, which is a very highly regarded law school. So either her prep from Oral Roberts was bad, in which case that would suggest she’s even smarter since she managed to make it through despite that. Or, Oral Roberts actually had a decent law program, in which case she’s got fine academic credentials. Either way, I don’t think the smear of her having a lousy education sticks. An LL.M from W&M is nothing to sneeze at.
Also, just who said that Obama wasn’ t educated enough to be POTUS? This smells like a straw man you’ve invented. If anything, the knock against Obama is that he’s an academic with no real-world experience. I haven’t heard anyone criticize his educational credentials. What they have criticized is whether his life experience AFTER university qualified him to be POTUS. In particular, his lack of executive experience.
And by the way, it looks to me like that criticism is dead-on - Obama’s lack of executive experience is showing daily - to the detriment of both the kinds of policies I would want and the kind that you would want. It seems to me that the progressive criticism of Obama is that he’s in over his head, that he keeps getting rolled by the opposition, and that he doesn’t know how to lead. That all stems from lack of executive experience.
You say this like there’s a difference.
We don’t know when it got it’s accreditidation back orhow many of Bachmann’s credits were post-dated that accreditidation.
William and Mary doesn’t offer an LL.M., and she doesn’t list that credential on her dot gov bio, so I’m skeptical.
Michele Bachmann said it. It’s in the Minnesota Independent article linked above.
Sorry, but this is just hectoreing, partsan tripe.
I notice you ignored all of the cited examples of stupid things Bachmann has said. How do you defend her saying that FEMA is setting up “reeducation camps,” or inventing the India story about Obama? How do you defend her saying that GLBT people “are targeting our children,” and that schools are telling kids that “tehy should try it.” Those are exact quotes. I am not paraphrasing or misrepresenting her. Those quotes are undeniable evidence that she is either stupid, psychotic pr a clinically pathological liar. . Most Minnesotamns regard her as an embarrassment and she would never be able to win a state-wide election.
Of course there is. If the best law school in the nation said that it wouldn’t accept persons of a certain color or a certain faith, it would lose accreditation, but that wouldn’t mean the quality of the actual teaching is bad.
Really Not All That Bright’s link says it was provisionally accredited from 1983 until it shut down.
Interesting that when I Googled this, the top of the list is full of lefty sites ‘calling into question’ her LL.M, using the same weird argument that you’re using (that William and Mary doesn’t currently offer an LL.M).
Of course, none of these lefty rocket scientists apparently checked by the difficult task of, you know, actually going to William and Mary’s web site. I did, and Here’s the LL.M Program Information for you.
The Washington Post says in its bio of her that she graduated with an LL.M from William and Mary in 1988.
Upon further investigation, it appears that this particular slur originated at Daily Kos, that bastion of journalistic accuracy. What a surprise. That original post actually makes the claim that the LLM at William and Mary is not in Tax Law, and also that they only accept foreign students. That is certainly true today from what I can tell, but has no bearing on what W&M offered in 1988.
Of course, if you read the comments in the Daily Kos thread, you’d see that the comment thread is full of links to various American Professors and tax lawyers who also claim they have an LL.M in tax law from William and Mary. Are they all liars?
Furthermore, someone in that same thread posts this from W&M’s history:
There you go. William and Mary DID offer an LLM in taxation. Since it would be weird to offer an LLM in tax law to non-American students only, one must assume that this was a program available to American students.
When I did a search on William and Mary’s site, I turned up PDF’s of scholarly papers whose authors also claimed to have an LLM in tax law from W&M.
You want to keep going down this particular bunny hole?
I DIDN’T defend her. You don’t even bother to read most of the posts you respond to, do you? I specifically said that if she said the things you claimed, then those are GOOD reasons to oppose her. I’m not defending Bachmann at all. I specifically pointed out to you that the only reason I spoke up at all is because, as usual you ignored valid criticisms of her and went way over the top with accusations of stupidity and academic fraud, without having anything to back those accusations up.
Did you miss the part where I said that if Bachmann is a strident fundy Christian who wants to use government to promote her values I’d actually prefer Palin, but I’d even more prefer to have needles stuck in my eyes? Does that sound like a ringing endorsement to you?
More like she makes Palin look like she has brains and education. You really cannot be serious about that statement.
It means her law degree was recognized. She wouldn’t have needed an LL.M to practice tax law. In the US, the primary purpose of LL.M programs is to allow foreign graduates to “domesticate” their degrees. Otherwise, they’re mostly sought by people who want to teach.
I agree that this is all kind of far-fetched, and there has been a trend over the last 20-odd years away from LL.M programs as a sort of grad school for law students (meaning it’s not at all unlikely that W&M did have a tax law LLM program and dropped it).
On the other hand, we’re just asking questions. 
None of this makes any difference to Bachmanns’ base. These are folks who believe that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a phrase in the US Conststution, and if it isnt, it should be. Reason and credentials are negatives.
A Palin endorsement of Bachmann is interesting, but what would be in it for Palin?
Crane
Right now Mitt Romney has an ad at the top of this page and a number of dubious law schools are featured in the Google ads at the bottom.
Haley Barbour is not running. That leaves Bachmann, Pawlenty, Romney and maybe Daniels as the remaining “real” candidates.
Obama must be feeling very comfortable right now.
I think you have to count Newt in with the real candidates. It’s mostly by default, however.
Why don’t you have The Donald in that group? Are you implying he isn’t real?
Not his hair.
Him.
As a person and actual candidate.
Well, I’ll grant Trump is a real person, with a circulatory system and everything. But he’s pretty clearly a vanity candidate, he’ll never get close to winning the nomination.
I’d put Newt in the same category, but admittedly that’s probably more debatable.
Ron Paul is running.
He won’t win the nomination, but I’ll bet he pulls some pretty good numbers in early going.
No, you’re right. Gingrich knows he has no shot in hell at winning a general election, but if he makes noises like he’s planning on running, he can sell more books.
Trump is even more transparently drumming up ratings for Celebrity Apprentice.
Well, Gingrich is, at least, actually a politician, with some experience in significant elected office. I’d say that he’s high up enough that if he says he’s running, he has to be treated as a “real candidate”. He’s still not going to win, but he’s not a total joke.
Oh yes, yes he is.
It should be Romney. In saner times it would be Romney. I just don’t see how he gets there without courting the nuts and racists.